Thursday, August 28, 2008
Reality Time
Matt Yglesias observes the spate of union-sponsored Fenty-bashing at the Democratic national convention, driven in large part by the Fenty administration's proposal to pay teachers a lot more money in exchange for more accountability and less job security, and doesn't like what he sees. (Side note: let's all agree to apply some standards of objectivity and reasonableness in the use of the word "bashing." If you're, say, handing out flyers that call someone a "budget-shattering, union-busting, promise-breaking political boss whose poor performance and bad management are costing DC taxpayers millions of dollars," that's bashing. If you say "Fenty's policies would be bad for teachers and public education, and here's why," or, alternatively, "The union position is short-sighted and will degrade the quality of the teacher workforce," that's not bashing, which implies a certain level of name-calling, histrionics, and barely-concealed rage.) Matt notes that:
DC is, at this point, in better financial shape than the vast majority of American localities and also has much worse schools. Under the circumstances, it’s the best possible opportunity for teachers to get what Rhee’s putting on the table — generous reform that puts real resources on the table and thereby keeps teaching as an attractive career path even while building some additional accountability into the deal.Teacher salaries have been stagnant for a long time. They don't get paid as much as other other well-educated professionals whose jobs require similar levels of training and hard work to do well. Teachers and their representatives in organized labor think this is unfair and would like it to change. And they're absolutely right to do so. It would be great to see teachers consistently making six-figure incomes. A lot of them deserve it, and it would send powerful signals to the job market about the nature and status of the profession.
But the idea that those kinds of dollars are going to arrive without some significant tradeoffs in terms of accountability and job security is a complete fantasy. It will never happen. And the circumstances under which it can happen are fairly uncommon: A powerful sense of need--i.e. a school district whose educational challenges justify the infusion of resources--plus leaders with access to those resources and the willingness to let teachers decide for themselves whether or not to participate. In other words, the deal isn't getting much better than this.
Critics have raised the usual objections about the potential for favoritism and bias in the evaluation process, the spectre of good teachers losing their jobs because they happened to get a particularly tough group of students one year, things went pear-shaped on testing day, etc. But let's think about that for a moment. Here you have a mayor and schools chancellor who've staked their careers and reputations on turning around the school system. To do that, it's vitally important for them to hire, retain, and support good teachers. It would, therefore, be shockingly dumb to start arbitrarily firing good teachers or otherwise treat them unfairly. Fenty and Rhee have every incentive to make sure their evaluation process is sound. If they don't, their jobs are the ones at risk.
This highlights the importance of understanding how the major threads of school reform fit together. Absent political or governmental accountability for results, it's perfectly reasonable to worry that management at various levels--city, district, school--could and will abuse their discretion. If nobody cares whether your students are learning, then sure, give a fat bonus to your buddy and fire the teacher down the hall who called you out for your incompetence. But when there's real accountability and public scrutiny, the incentives change, and policies like tying teacher pay to performance, defined in part by managerial judgment, start to make a lot more sense. -- |
Comments